Florida justices hear medical marijuana arguments

The effort to let Floridians decide whether medical marijuana should be allowed ran into a skeptical Florida Supreme Court on Thursday.

The state’s highest court heard arguments over whether the ballot language of the constitutional initiative is accurate or misleading.

Opponents, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and legislative leaders, contend the amendment that is slated for the November 2014 ballot should be rejected because the ballot title and summary do not accurately reflect the broad scope of the amendment.

“You don’t even have to have a disease to get marijuana under this amendment,” state Solicitor General Allen Winsor told the justices.

Jon Mills, a former House speaker representing People United for Medical Marijuana, said the ballot language is accurate when read as a whole, with the title citing marijuana use for “certain medical conditions” and the summary saying patients can receive marijuana for “debilitating diseases as determined by a licensed Florida physician.”

“This proposal is a narrow policy proposal,” Mills said. “The explanation within the 75-word (ballot) limit conveys to average voter the chief purpose in a way that is readily understandable.”

The accuracy of the ballot language appears to be the key issue for the court. The justices asked few questions about the opponents’ additional assertion that the amendment violates the “single subject” rule for ballot initiatives by incorporating other provisions beyond the medical use of marijuana, including an elaborate scheme to regulate the drug use.

The justices will issue their opinion at a later unspecified date.

Meanwhile, the medical marijuana initiative faces another looming challenge. Supporters need to collect and have validated 683,149 voter signatures by February. John Morgan, the Orlando trial lawyer who is leading the initiative, said his group has collected about 400,000 signatures.

Several justices questioned whether the ballot summary reflected the fact that the amendment would allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for conditions other than debilitating diseases. Chief Justice Ricky Polston said the way he read the amendment, a doctor could prescribe marijuana for a student suffering from test anxiety if the physician determined the benefits outweighed the risks.

“Wouldn’t that be included in this?” he asked.

Justice Charles Canady asked a similar line of questions, noting that the text of the full amendment allows the use of medical marijuana for debilitating disease but also for “other conditions for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient.”

Canady said the “other conditions” language “seems to be very different from what the ballot summary suggests by referring to debilitating diseases.”

Mills said if the ballot title — which mentions “conditions” — is read together with the summary both areas are covered. “You must read those two together,” he said.

“The physician has to say what this debilitating condition is and report that back to the (state) Department of Health,” Mills said.

Another attack from the opponents on the accuracy of the ballot language was aimed at the issue of federal law. While Florida might join 20 other states that allow medical marijuana, the drug use and cultivation remain illegal under federal law.

Winsor, the solicitor general, said the ballot language clouds that fact.

“A voter walking into the voting booth would walk out thinking medical marijuana is lawful under federal law because of the choice the sponsor made in putting the summary together,” he said.

Justice Fred Lewis said that wasn’t clear since the ballot summary said the measure does “not authorize violations of federal law or any non-medical use.”

Mills said voters understand that marijuana use remains illegal under federal law and that the amendment only applies to Florida law.

Winsor also said the ballot language was misleading because it did not mention other major provisions in the amendment, including the granting of immunity from criminal or civil liability for doctors who prescribe marijuana in accordance with the amendment.

The state Division of Elections reported Thursday that the PUFMM group has just under 137,000 signatures validated by local supervisors of elections. There is a lag between collecting the signatures and having them verified.

Ben Pollara, the campaign manager for the medical-marijuana initiative, said the group expects a favorable ruling from the court. But in a message to supporters, following the hearing, he pressed the necessity of continuing to collect the voter petitions.

“While we have confidence that the court will rule in our favor, we can’t wait for its decision,” Pollara said. “We have to collect all the petitions we need within the next 30 days.”

Lloyd Dunkelberger

Lloyd Dunkelberger is the Htpolitics.com Capital Bureau Chief.
He can be reached by email or call 850 556-3542.
""More Dunkelberger"
Make sure to "Like" HT Politics on Facebook for all your breaking political news.

Last modified: December 5, 2013
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published without permissions. Links are encouraged.